Art As a Weapon¨
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Akhavan Note (Do Not Delete) 2/22/20 4:47 PM ART AS A WEAPON¨ INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 153 I. BACKGROUND ................................................................................... 156 A. Degenerate Art, Aryanization, and Government-Organized Theft .................................................................................... 156 B. Restitution Efforts ............................................................... 159 C. History Repeats Itself: ISIS-Looted Cultural Property ...... 160 D. Legal Background .............................................................. 162 1. CategorIes of Property; Obtaining Good Title .............. 162 2. Adverse Possession, Statute of Limitations, and Laches ................................................................................ 165 3. The Law Governing Cultural Property ......................... 169 4. Legal Developments In Holocaust-Era Art Claims ...... 172 II. RAMIFICATIONS OF LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS ..................................... 174 A. Implications of the HEAR Act ............................................ 174 B. Lessons to be Learned? ...................................................... 175 III. PROPOSAL FOR PROACTIVE REFORM ............................................... 177 CONCLUSION ......................................................................................... 181 INTRODUCTION Imagine being content in your career, enjoying your financial freedom, and being able to pursue your love for the fine arts With your hard-earned wealth. You begin collecting pieces of considerable value— sculptures, jewelry, paintings—and grow your private collection with works from renowned and obscure artists alike. This is your life dream, as the child of art aficionados, and this is precisely what you have worked so hard your entire life for. One morning, you open a letter from the attorney of an individual claiming to be the descendant of the rightful owner of one of your most prized paintings. He demands for its return on the grounds that it was stolen from his family during the Holocaust. Naturally, you have an attachment to this piece (especially after paying such a large sum for it, which you Were Willing to fork over because of the subject’s resemblance ¨ PermIssIon Is hereby Granted for noncommercIal reproductIon of thIs Note In Whole or In part for educatIon or research purposes, IncludInG the makInG of multIple copIes for classroom use, subject only to the conditIon that the name of the author, a complete citatIon, and thIs copyrIGht notIce and grant of permIssIon be Included In all copies. 153 Akhavan Note (Do Not Delete) 2/22/20 4:47 PM 154 CARDOZO ARTS & ENTERTAINMENT [Vol. 38:1 to your Wife) but now question Whether or not you even have good title, despite purchasing it from a reputable Manhattan gallery. Moreover, you are mortified by the thought of the potentially violent history behind the gorgeous piece hung in the living room where you watch old film noirs every Saturday night with your wife and cat, war being the last thing on anyone’s mind. The thought of someone else loving the painting just as much as you, only to have it stolen in such a horrific way, fills you with sadness and guilt. You also Wonder if it is even possible for this person, generations removed from the original owner, to claim superior ownership rights to your painting over seventy years after the War has ended. The legality of your own actions and those of the gallery creep into your mind, even though you had no idea that you Were purchasing a potentially stolen painting, and the gallery surely would not have sold you something like that. Whose fault is it really? What do you do now? Contrast this point of view to that of the grandson of a Holocaust victim—a victim who happened to be quite a lover of the arts himself. You lost many of your ancestors, most tangible memories of your family from that era, and virtually all hope of ever having the opportunity to see your grandfather’s beloved art collection—all to World War II atrocities. That Is, untIl one day, as you sIp your morning cold brew before going about your life as usual, you stumble upon an article on a very expensive painting sold at the gallery across town. You immediately recognize the image pictured as one of the paintings your family spoke of When reminiscing about your grandfather’s lost art collection. Your heart drops and the anger sets in, knowing that the painting rightfully belongs in your family, and that it is one of the last tangible links to the grandfather you always wished you had known. Should you say something to the purchaser? If so, should you retain counsel first? Can you even afford a lawyer? Is it possible that you still have property rights to the painting after all this time? There certainly have been others in your situation, and some have actually succeeded in having their art returned. You believe that, despite the complications, it is still worth a shot, at least for the sake of honoring your grandfather’s memory and what you assume he would have wanted if he were here now. These starkly contrastIng scenarIos demonstrate the complex interests at stake in claims for the restitution of stolen art, only further complicated by the sensitive context in which these issues arise. The precise extent of the damage done to families, property, and culture as a whole because of unfathomable Holocaust atrocities Will likely never be known. Lingering effects of this systematic wartime plunder have been felt by victims, their families, and art-lovers alike across borders. Be it cultural or pecuniary grievances, the looting of art under Adolf Hitler’s oppressive regime has had complicated legal ramifications stretching Akhavan Note (Do Not Delete) 2/22/20 4:47 PM 2020] ART AS A WEAPON 155 well Into the present, though most Holocaust survivors have now passed. QuestIons frequently arIse regarding how the law, morality, and ethics interact on this topic, and Whether they should be far more intertwined than they are presently. Why exactly Is It so dIffIcult to sImply return stolen, beloved property to genocide victims? It would seem like common sense. At least, one ought to consider ways to somehow make amends to a group who has been made to suffer in such a notoriously heinous fashion. However, considering the interests of parties involved in these transactions—such as good faith purchasers and beneficiaries (perhaps completely unaware of their possession of viciously stolen property)—can shed a much different light on that question. Unfortunately, the law is not always centered around morality, whether or not it should be in the face of war, genocide, stolen property, and priceless artifacts. This fact, along with legal principles that militate issues such as the passage of time, duties of involved parties, and loss of evidence, has shaped the Way victims have been made to suffer the residual effects of the Holocaust long after the end of World War II. This Note analyzes how property rIghts can shift during wartime, in addition to examining the question of whether or not they should. Part I examines the historical background underlying government-organized art theft and the looting and destruction of cultural property, including contributing ideological factors, how restitution efforts have developed over time, and the legal landscape governing the outcomes of proceedings involving stolen art and antiquities. Part II analyzes the ramifications of these legal developments, particularly how the law has affected victims’ property rights and answered to the lingering effects of the Holocaust. Further, Part II compares the laws addressing Holocaust-era art claims to treaties governing the ongoing crisis of ISIS-looted cultural property. Part III proposes five reform factors for the newly-implemented HEAR Act to take into consideration in order to allow victims the broadest opportunity to seek restitution: (1) the shifting of the due diligence analysis onto the current possessor of afflicted art, (2) the complete removal of the Act’s federal statute of limitations, (3) alternatively, the substitution of a more favorable demand and refusal rule, (4) providing attorneys’ fees for claimants, and (5) the removal of the Act’s sunset provision. AdditIonally, this Note advocates for the similar removal of the 1995 UNIDROIT ConventIon’s three-year statute of limitations and fifty-year WIndow from the tIme of the theft for cultural property restitution claims, or alternatively, the substitution of a demand and refusal rule. These fair improvements Would allow for a far more lenient legal landscape that incorporates more robust ethical and moral considerations, Which appear to have been long neglected When victims (the individual, the institution, Akhavan Note (Do Not Delete) 2/22/20 4:47 PM 156 CARDOZO ARTS & ENTERTAINMENT [Vol. 38:1 or the state) of War and conflict are involved. All things considered, a final overarching question remains as to Whether, in this context, the law and its largely symbolic developments have only succeeded in sweeping the past and the lessons to be learned from it under the rug—all the while adding insult to injury. I. BACKGROUND Hitler’s endeavor to destroy an entire culture is critical context for the ancillary legal disputes. Art, regardless of the medium, not only showcases the inner lives of those Who share it With society, but ultimately chronicles human achievement. It undoubtedly can be controversial,